Yeah, I would second that.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:21 AM
Cc: LemayDaniel [CMC]; ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'll speak up for this....Personally, I don't want that level of logging.
The purpose of
the log is catch errors and problems, not to fill up a disk with junk
messages about what
data went where. There are several other good ways to check on product
receipt and
transmission. LDM has proven itself to be reliable, I don't need
confirmation, I need to
know about errors and problems.
Alan.
Steve Emmerson wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:24:47 -0500
> >From: "Lemay,Daniel [CMC]" <Daniel.Lemay@xxxxxxxx>
> >To: "'Steve Emmerson'" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: RE: LDM transmission logs
>
> The above message contained the following:
>
> > Can I conclude from your answer that if my "clients" use LDM 6 I cannot
> > monitor what files I "send" to them?
>
> As the LDM 6 is currently, the only way to get an upstream LDM 6 to log
> data-product metadata upon transmission is to put the process into
> "debug" logging (e.g., by sending the process two USER2 signals). This
> has the unfortunate effect of logging too much information.
>
> One can use the "ldmadmin watch" capability to monitor what data
> products arrive in the queue.
>
> One can also use the rtstats webpage at
>
> <http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/chiz/rtstats/>
>
> to monitor performance.
>
> The webpage
>
>
<http://my.unidata.ucar.edu/content/software/ldm/ldm-6.0.14/basics/monitorin
g.html>
>
> contains information on monitoring LDM performance.
>
> > If this is the case, why this possibility have been lost in passing for
> > version 5 to version 6?
>
> Brain damage? :-)
>
> Seriously, I'm thinking about adding this capability to the LDM 6 code
> (the lack of this capability bit me in the LDM workshop I just gave).
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Daniel
>
> Regards,
> Steve Emmerson
